Juries and the CSI Effect

Juries:

  • As guaranteed by the 6th (criminal case) and 7th (civil cases) amendments people have the right to trial by an impartial jury

  • Some countries empanel professional juries, in the US, ordinary citizens are selected as jurors

  • Juries in the American system are non-professional sworn to be the “triers of fact” that means that they decide what happened

  • They do not “pass judgment”- decide the punishment. That responsibility belongs to the trier of law-the Judge

  • We are concerned with the Petit. This is the trial jury:

    • Grand Jury: Indictments

    • Coroner’s Jury: Cause of death

  • Rules for deliberations differ by jurisdictions, by essentially-evidence is presented in trial then the jurors retire to a private chamber to discuss it and decide what happened

  • In most cases where there is complicated evidence, the initial verdict is 7:5 or 8:5

Courtroom Demeanor:

Trier of Fact:

  • Judge:

    • Trained in the law

    • Advanced education

    • Experience in hearing testimony

      • Witness of fact

      • Expert Witness

    • They do this for a living

  • Jury:

    • Not trained in the law

    • The judge will help them as the trial proceeds

    • Average of the high school education

    • Probably never heard real testimony

    • Most have preconceived ideas

    • Many don’t want to be there in the first place

    • This is not their job, and they need help

    • Preconceived notion of the proceedings from the media

      • Perry Mason

      • Law and Order

    • Media has also given many a preconceived idea of the science involved in the case

      • CSI

      • Other forensic shows

Add the 7th amendment

Jury system: Reasons to avoid juries

  • Thru lack of intelligence, can not learn information necessary to make an informed decision

  • Because they are uneducated, lack the skills necessary to understand complex information

  • They have a short attention span and cannot stay focused to understand complex topics

Jury system: Reasons to have juries

  • Promotes the idea that justice can be coupled with reasonable application of the law

  • Maintains a dynamic system reflecting public values

  • Prevents the intellectual class from exerting too much power

  • Creates public confidence in the legal system

How does the jury reach a consensus?

  • Everyone explains their vote

  • The majority states its case

  • They minority has to justify their case

  • All these can lead to groupthink

Juries:

  • None the less- it all starts with the individual juror

  • When the facts of the trial are complicated the most people have no training to understand the evidence

  • The expert is supposed to explain it- but studies show that this typically not enough

Challenges:

  • Scientific Literacy:

  • In the US, the average juror has a scientific literacy of a high school sophomore

  • In cases where complicated evidence is being presented, only 14.7% of a jury typically understands it

  • That 14.7% typically reaches the correct verdict

  • The remaining jurors typically reach the correct verdict approximately 50%

  • As a result roughly 65% of the jurors reach the correct verdict on their own

  • “Group Think” takes over and the jurors side with the majority

  • The result is that historically, juries reach the correct verdict about 85% of the time. The rest are usually mistrials, hung juries and incorrect verdicts

Groupthink:

  • This is not unusual

  • From a neuroscience perspective, brain scans determined that an indivduals’s metacognitive assessments of their own decision making can impacted more by their desire for reward than their perception or memory. The more serious the decision, more important it is to be right. Neurologically, therefore the higher a person confidence will be in their decision. In cases like jury deliberations the reward is being correct and helping the jury reach a verdict. Thus going with the majority

  • People think they know more than they do

  • Inflated metacognitive assessment impact an individuals ability to accurately and honestly assess their own understanding of facts and concepts. The lake wobegon effect is the overestimation of ones knowledge and capabilities. It is a tendency of a person to see themselves as better than others. The tendency has been found to be the greatest in countries with the greatest economics disparity like the United states

  • And another view on inflated metacognition is described by the Dunning-Kruger Effect where people of low skill overestimate their actual ability. It is suggested that his overestimation is due to a combination of facts. First, people of lower competence tend to make poor decisions. Second, once the poor decision is made, the individual doesn’t have the knowledge to know it was a poor decision

  • These combined with over validation of individuals common in social messaging and the pseudo presentation of science in entertainment lead to the CSI effect

  • It is reasonable to assume that the average juror believes the verdict they reach, even if they have no reasonable basis for that belief. In the context of a jury once that decision is made, it is then evaluated against the decision of the group

  • But if the decision wa made by a person without relevant knowledge then the pleasure/ reward centers of the brain are involved. If the reward is secured in the form of agreement with the group, this decision is validated. The individual still has no real knowledge to know whether he/she is actually correct, but he/she now builds the experiential memory of feeling correct. This memory can then be the basis from which decision are made in the future

Challenges:

  • When the 14% correctly understands the science, this biases the jury to the correct answer

  • When the 14% have it wrong- the jury is biased to the incorrect verdict

  • In the past this worked to the benefit of the system

  • but things are changing

CSI effect:

  • As result of entertainment media, social media and over validation of individuals self worth, the average person believes he/she has knowledge or expertise they do not have

  • This certainty can sway a jury as strongly as scientific knowledge

  • Studies are mixed as to whether or not this benefits the prosecution or defense

How do we address these challenges?

  • Well trained scientists who can explain the science in a way that the average non-expert can correctly interpret it. Better education across society

  • University level research oriented people capable of innovating

  • Quality system designed to maintain accuracy of laboratory services